GR 24703; (July, 1970) (Digest)
G.R. No. 24703 July 31, 1970
MAGIN VELEZ and LUCY VELEZ, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, (through its Special Fifth Division composed of Edmundo Piccio, Hermogenes Concepcion, Jr., and Antonio Canizares, Justices); ULDARICO BACAY and VICENTE MIRANDA, as Provincial Sheriff of Cebu, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Magin and Lucy Velez filed a case for rescission of a deed of absolute sale against respondent Uldarico Bacay. The Court of First Instance of Cebu rendered judgment on February 25, 1965, rescinding the sale and ordering Bacay to restore possession of the property to the Velez spouses. Bacay’s appeal was disapproved by the trial court on May 12, 1965, for filing his appeal bond out of time. Consequently, the trial court ordered execution, and a writ was issued on May 25, 1965. On June 4, 1965, the trial court denied Bacay’s motion to quash the writ and ordered him to vacate the property within five days. On June 5, 1965, Bacay filed a notice of appeal from this order. Meanwhile, on June 1, 1965, Bacay filed a petition for relief from the order denying his appeal. On June 8, 1965, Bacay filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of Appeals against the Velez spouses, the trial judge, and the sheriff, seeking to set aside the June 4 order and stay execution. On June 9, 1965, the sheriff implemented the writ of execution and delivered the property to the Velez spouses at 1:45 p.m. Later that same day, the Court of Appeals issued a writ of preliminary injunction ex parte, which was served on the judge and sheriff in the evening. The Velez spouses offered a counterbond, which was denied. On June 23, 1965, the Court of Appeals ordered the provincial sheriff to restore Bacay’s possession. The Velez spouses refused to vacate. On July 1, 1965, the Velez spouses filed a motion to disqualify Justice Edmundo S. Piccio, alleging he had granted private interviews to Bacay’s wife. This motion was not expressly resolved. On July 14, 1965, the Court of Appeals issued an order for the arrest and confinement of the Velez spouses until they relinquished possession to Bacay, which was carried out. The Velez spouses then filed the present petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Court of Appeals acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in giving due course to Bacay’s petition for certiorari and prohibition.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not resolving the motion to disqualify Justice Piccio before taking further action.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding the Velez spouses guilty of contempt for disobeying the writ of preliminary injunction and the order of June 23, 1965.
RULING
1. The Supreme Court refrained from ruling on the issue of whether the Court of Appeals acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. The Court held that the questions of the finality of the trial court’s decision and the availability of other adequate remedies for Bacay were precisely the issues to be litigated and resolved by the Court of Appeals in the petition before it. The Supreme Court declined to preempt the appellate court’s authority by considering these issues in the present special civil action.
2. The Supreme Court found no merit in the issue regarding the motion to disqualify Justice Piccio. The Court noted that when Justice Piccio took action by issuing the order of arrest, the motion for disqualification was impliedly denied. Furthermore, the alleged ground for disqualification—partiality or bias due to private interviews—was not one of the specific grounds enumerated in Rule 137 for disqualification of judges. The Court also noted the issue had become moot due to Justice Piccio’s death.
3. The Supreme Court granted relief to the petitioners on the contempt issue. The Court held that the writ of preliminary injunction was prohibitory, intended to stop the enforcement of the writ of execution. However, by the time the injunction was served, the execution had already been implemented, and the Velez spouses were already in possession. Therefore, there was nothing left to enjoin. The Court also held that the order of June 23, 1965, was addressed to the provincial sheriff, not directly to the Velez spouses. Under these circumstances, the act of the Velez spouses in remaining in possession, having been placed there by virtue of a valid writ of execution, did not constitute contempt of the Court of Appeals. The order of contempt dated July 14, 1965, was set aside.
WHEREFORE, the writ prayed for is denied, except with respect to the order of contempt dated July 14, 1965, which is hereby set aside. No pronouncement as to costs.